There's also another thing that should be stressed here. You were able to do
this as a complete outsider. There was nothing keeping you from getting the
raw data and doing the calculation yourself. If all the raw data was being
hidden by an alarmist cabal how could you even do this?

> I've been checking my calculations and have added some more screen shots to
> the Picasa web album at:
>
>
> http://picasaweb.google.com/IGD.Strachan/Darwin#
>
> I put in a screenshot of "Figure 7" from Eschenbach's article, showing the
> Raw and Adjusted temperatures at Darwin airport. The figure is rather
> confusing as the black line on Fig 7 shows that the pre-1941 data was
> adjusted DOWN by 2C (presumably because the absence of a cover led to
> artificially high temperatures), but Eschenbach has aligned the two series
> (raw and adjusted) look the same before 1941 and that therefore the series
> looks elevated post 1941 with respect to the raw data.
>
> However, I also added in the album the result of showing Raw and Adjusted
> using the applet at
> http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/climatedata.aspx?Dataset=GHCNTemp> (which Eschenbach also used earlier in the article).
>
> In that graph, you will see that the pre-1940 data was adjusted down, and
> that post 1940 the two series look remarkably similar. Hence no elevated
> trend appears to have been manufactured by the adjustments.
>
> Furthermore, I calculated the trendline post 1963 for both raw and adjusted
> and they both show a decline of 0.84 degrees per century.
>
> By contrast Eschenbach claims the trend is +1.2 by plotting the trend using
> the unreliable pre-1940 data.
>
> When I first read the Eschenbach article I was really interested - it
> seemed very plausible and I was prepared to be convinced that there had been
> data fiddling in the adjustments. But in order to verify this, I had to
> examine the data myself. I got the data and examined it with an open mind.
> I was extremely surprised to find that the adjusted data fitted so exactly
> over the raw data in the post 1963 data. I did not expect to see that.
>
> So I am absolutely disgusted to find that it appears to be Eschenbach who
> is doing the fiddling. I don't think even Answers in Genesis have engaged
> on fabrication and deception on this level.
>
> If this is the sort of tactic the global warming skeptics (or sceptics as
> we say in England) are employing, then I also add myself to the list of
> people who have become more convinced of the truth of AGW as a result of
> this.
>
> If anyone wants to verify my calculations, please email me privately and
> I'll send you an Excel 2007 spreadsheet containing all the data I got from
> the GISS website and the charts derived from them.
>
> Personally I think people should verify my work. After today I wouldn't
> trust ANYONE writing about it!
>
> Iain
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hmmm.... seems I wasted an hour or so finding this out for myself!!
>>>
>>> Still ... you can't beat "engaging with the data".
>>>
>>> Iain
>>>
>>
>> Actually it's a great help and thanks Iain, because it shows how science
>> and the peer review process really works. It's not competing blog entries
>> and web sites. Rather, it's taking the conclusions and trying to
>> replicate or falsify it. Getting published in a peer-reviewed journal is by
>> no means a sufficient condition for good science. It's the boring
>> replication part that gets little public attention where the real work gets
>> done.
>>
>> Of all the leaked e-mails the one that are the most troubling are the ones
>> trying to keep the crazy stuff out of the journals. By having it out there
>> it subjects these ideas to expert scrutiny and either replication and
>> falsification like you did in a mere hour. I've also found negative results
>> are often more valuable than positive ones. Anyway that was my opinion a
>> mere few weeks ago. Over the last couple weeks seeing up close how the
>> disinformation machine works and the bogus slides that Willie Soon, one of
>> the authors of the attempted blocked paper, provided for Lord Monckton I am
>> currently re-thinking this. See here for more details noting the source of
>> the graph.
>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/ Lord
>> Monckton attributed it to Willie Soon in his speech with the run up to
>> Copenhagen. (I was asked offline to look at this video. I only got six
>> minutes in before I had to empty the trash can of vomit.)
>>
>> One last thing concerning my use of the word denialist. This is reserved
>> for those who *deny* the existence of antropogenic global warming. True
>> skeptics such as John Cristy accept it. In fact, I saw a video from February
>> of this year where Dr. Cristy accepted the 0.15 degree per decade
>> anthropogenic warming which is the consensus figure. It should be noted that
>> Dr. Cristy is a huge fan of using the satellites over the ground stations.
>> If he was convinced it must have been from the data source he believes is
>> most accurate. Satellites were helpful, BTW, in solving the attribution
>> problem. Antropogenic and solar warming have different signatures of warming
>> at different altitudes. The profile of the warming with altitude found by
>> the satellites and radiosondes match antropogenic but not solar warming.
>>
>> Rich Blinne
>> Member ASA
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> -----------
> Non timeo sed caveo
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Dec 10 16:05:26 2009